Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schmerber Vs. California

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 20, 1966

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Breithaupt Vs. Abram US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1957
  2. Malloy Vs. Hogan US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1964
  3. Counselman Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1892
  4. United States Vs. Rabinowitz US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1950
  5. U.S. 757 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Schmerber v. California
    Search
  6. U.S. 757 (1966) Schmerber v. California
    Search
  7. In view of constitutional decisions since we last considered these issues in Breithaupt v. Abram
    Search
  8. U. S. 432 -- see Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search
  9. U. S. 1 , and Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  10. that sense of justice' of which we spoke in Rochin v. California
    Search
  11. citing Twining v. New
    Search
  12. protections of the Fourteenth Amendment do not embrace this Fifth Amendment privilege, has been succeeded by Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  13. the complex of values it helps to protect, we might be obliged to conclude that the privilege was violated. In Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  14. Ibid. The leading case in this Court is Holt v. United
    Search
  15. of responses which are also communications, for example, compliance with a subpoena to produce one's papers. Boyd v. United
    Search
  16. did not decide whether the extraction of blood in that case was unlawful, but rejected the claim on the basis of Wolf v. Colorado
    Search
  17. in violation of the Fourth Amendment's provisions. We have since overruled Wolf in that respect, holding in Mapp v. Ohio
    Search
  18. U. S. 643 , that the exclusionary rule adopted for federal prosecutions in Weeks v. United
    Search
  19. Weeks v. United
    Search
  20. People v. Chiagles
    Search
  21. danger of concealed weapons or of destruction of evidence under the direct control of the accused, United States v. Rabinowitz
    Search
  22. to enforcement of the Fourth Amendment's purpose to attempt to confine the search to those objects alone. People v. Chiagles
    Search
  23. Johnson v. United
    Search
  24. Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  25. Preston v. United
    Search
  26. a highly effective means of determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol. See Breithaupt v. Abram
    Search
  27. of the State in this proceeding since certification to the California District Court of Appeal was denied. See Edwards v. California
    Search
  28. McNaughton rev. 1961). California adopted the Wigmore formulation in People v. Trujillo
    Search
  29. with specific regard to blood tests, see People v. Haeussler
    Search
  30. People v. Duroncelay
    Search
  31. McNaughton rev. 1961). See also United States v. Chibbaro
    Search
  32. People v. Graves
    Search
  33. evidence and a comment by the prosecutor in closing argument upon his refusal is ground for reversal under Griffin v. California
    Search
  34. rather than the particular holding of Griffin, would be applicable in these circumstances, see Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  35. ante at 384 U. S. 468 , n. 37. Since trial here was conducted after our decision in Malloy v. Hogan
    Search
  36. Gouled v. United
    Search
  37. Boyd v. United
    Search
  38. People v. Thayer
    Search
  39. State v. Bisaccia
    Search
  40. Silverman v. United
    Search
  41. Abel v. United
    Search
  42. California's test of probable cause follows the federal standard. People v. Cockrell
    Search
  43. millions of us have voluntarily gone through the same, though a longer, routine in becoming blood donors. Breithaupt v. Abram
    Search
  44. in no way implicates the Fifth Amendment. Cf. my dissenting opinion and that of MR. JUSTICE WHITE in Miranda v. Arizona
    Search
  45. constitutional issues in this case, I believe it is sufficient for me to reiterate my dissenting opinion in Breithaupt v. Abram
    Search
  46. It concedes, as it must so long as Boyd v. United
    Search
  47. that the protection of the privilege 'is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchcock
    Search
  48. of this Court have declared it ought to have. The liberal construction given the Bill of Rights' guarantee in Boyd v. United
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Schmerber v. California
    Search
  50. Escobedo v. Illinois
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial